d34dluk3 wrote:I think the point is she doesn't agree with the system, so she's going to neutralize it as best she can.

Really doesn't take away from the hypocrisy, honey. But w/e...she can do what she wants.

<3

Is civil disobedience hypocrisy?

I know this isn't civil disobedience, but it seems similar to me on an abstract level: ignoring the rules because you believe in something different.

And I don't think what she's doing is hypocritical. If other people are profiting from an unfair system, is it "hypocritical" to profit also? Do you have to stand impotently on the sidelines whining about the unfair system or do you step in and neutralize the inequity?

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

Thank you. The rest can call this unethical all they want. I'm not claiming NA "without actually being it."

If I were black, but grew up in a white neighborhood and with white, would that mean I'm not black?

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

Thank you. The rest can call this unethical all they want. I'm not claiming NA "without actually being it."

If I were black, but grew up in a white neighborhood and with white, would that mean I'm not black?

You seem to have an issue with blacks. Every post is blacks take this. There are more URMS and minorities than black people. You analogy is a complete fail and offensive.

Last edited by hiromoto45 on Wed May 12, 2010 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

NO it would mean your diversity statement could be written about finding your cultural heritage when you are not being exposed to it which you could have done if you cared more about your NA blood than the URM boost it would provide you. =)

You have the right to check whatever you would like and write whatever false/true/stretch of a diversity statement you want. Really, its your choice. Your family clearly has some "tangible or verifable" tie to the Native American community. But don't turn this conversation into a "well someone else will just check the box and take my seat" conversation. Realistically, adcomms select people who they believe will succeed in law school. If you weren't that person without the check, you certainly won't be just because you attached Native American to your application. Just ask the minorities who don't get in ANYWHERE.

So, check Native American be prepared with your fathers ID thing and tribal affiliation. Have fun and hope that I answered your question.

Thank you for an informative response. I probably won't write a diversity statement. If checking a box gives me a boost, great. If not, oh well.

merichard87 wrote:Its not neutralization if you are simply taking advantage of an awkward situation. And anyway I was under the impression that to get the NA boost you must show a connection to that background. Oh well, its a mad, mad world.

Well, I think there's two ethical dilemmas here:- whether you can claim NA without actually being it (almost all people would say this is cheating)- whether it's ethical to claim NA if your NA by blood but not by heritage (obviously you are entitled to, but some people think it's unfair to claim it when you're applying along with people who actually are steeped in that culture)

OP sort of set this off by saying she was going to claim it (which she is entitled to) in order to offset affirmative action (this got the people who think "no" on the second point's panties in a twist). And so claims that she's a hypocritical, unethical person proliferate.

I don't get where this mindset that there's ethics behind rules comes from in general. No doubt there are ethics in the minds of the people who frame the rules, but an individual who comes upon the rules has no prior obligations to them. I don't see a valid reason to complain if someone is following the rules. If you don't like it, change the rules. That's what they're for.

Of course, bitching is practically America's national pastime at this point.

Thank you. The rest can call this unethical all they want. I'm not claiming NA "without actually being it."

If I were black, but grew up in a white neighborhood and with white, would that mean I'm not black?

You seem to have an issue with blacks. Every post is blacks take this. There are more rums and minorities than black people. You analogy is a complete fail and offensive.

I don't have an issue at all with blacks. It's hypothetical. Also, because I know URM is limited to very few minorities. It is my understanding that even Hispanics don't qualify for it (which surprises me).

Mrs. Jack Donaghy wrote:Yup... and after law school when you face close to zero obstacles towards reaching all of your law-related goals and having so much handed to you simply because you're a pretty blonde and that NA who had lower numbers than you, but clearly looks NA, whose spot you took faces said obstacles, I hope you feel good about this.

WTF?

Yes, I get everything handed to me for being blonde.

That's a stretch.

Well, it's a good thing I didn't come here to seek your approval on my looks.